Fictional 850' Tower Downtown

[westcoast604]

Considering the under-whelming height of the soon to be complete Shangri-La; I was curious to see what the skyline would look like with an 850' tower. I built a quick model in sketch-up and inserted into google earth. It is located on the site of the catherdral at georgia and burrard. Ive also inserted the shangri-la, ritz, woodwards, patina, and capitol, which are all white in colour.

The heights are all accurate, but some minor mis-representation is there because google earth is not the best for perception. But it does give a good general idea and I thought it was interesting and wanted to share.

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/456/picture1du5.jpg

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/4113/picture2yi2.jpg

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/3638/picture3se8.jpg

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/8165/picture5ej2.jpg

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/8995/picture6yj5.jpg

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/9672/picture12fj7.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/6738/picture16bh0.jpg

[deasine]

wow... u have lots of time

[Coldrsx]

done right...i love the idea.

you got skills er i mean time er i mean both

[raggedy13]

That's pretty sweet. Thanks for sharing. I think Vancouver could pull that look off. Ideally though, I think if there was another 600ft-800ft tower somewhere east of that big one it would balance the skyline just a bit more as well as add a little bit more of a transition from that side.

[westcoast604]

wow... u have lots of time

haha yes...at work. so im being paid to do this. And it really doesnt take much time.

[Lead]

I don't see what the big issue is. Is having a tower that high really that big of a deal? Sure it would block mountain views but wouldn't people also want to see a tower that soars above the rest and our cities defining stucture that when you see it you will know 100% that its Vancouver, much like the Sears Tower for Chicago?

[Dylan Leblanc]

I'd be surprised if downtown Vancouver were to get anything taller than Shangri-la in the near future.

[mr.x]

it looks great, but it's a bit penisy. needs some companions of similar height.

[Jacques]

I feel you did a cool job,
thanks

[giallo]

I could see this working. I can't imagine the city allowing something over 750' though. It would have to very slender above the 400' mark and offer a plethora of amenities. For some reason I see it happening sooner than later. Especially with the downtown land crunch that taking place at the moment.

[Jacques]

I could see this working. I can't imagine the city allowing something over 750' though. It would have to very slender above the 400' mark and offer a plethora of amenities. For some reason I see it happening sooner than later. Especially with the downtown land crunch that taking place at the moment.

I agree Once we get a change at City hall, it would not be a surprised that change be in the works due to the land space being so rare, after all the goals of architect's is always to surpass and meet the demand and impress and like any developing city its a matter of years not decades!

[nathan6969]

I can't imagine we see this anytime soon, even if city hall would allow it, given the huge glut of high-end residential coming online (shangri-la, ritz, fairmont, hotel georgia....) i can't imagine theres a market for it, and there certainly isn't a market for that kind of office space, really tall and slender towers aren't gonna be great for the office market anyway...these issues aside construction prices are so high now nobody's gonna wanna build something like this (ritz is already gonna push $500 million), something like this is prolly a long way down the road.

[Hot Rod]

never say never!

[raggedy13]

It's certainly a pretty iffy time at the moment regarding taller buildings in the city but it does feel as though the city is on the cusp of some potentially big changes. I think it's really up to City Hall at this point. Developers would definitely propose more taller towers if they knew there was any chance in them getting approved. I really hope the Metro Core Jobs Study helps to set some drastic changes in motion.

[androo3]

never say never!

I almost get the sense you say that like you know something is coming:rolleyes:

[jlousa]

You can quote me on this, we won't see a building taller then Shangri-la in Vancouver for at least 5 years, and probably 10.

[vanman]

^I'm an optimist, and I definitely doubt what you're saying is true. The city has already outlined that it would potentially increase densities and height limits in the core for office developments. As well with Shangri-la and RC reshaping the skyline in such an incredible way I think the general public will be much more accepting of taller towers.

[nathan6969]

I dunno if the general public was ever the problem.

[Lead]

I doubt it's the general public that has a problem with higher towers, it's city council. It was only after that study came out that they relaxed height restrictions allowing higher towers (like Shangri-La). I believe there is another study underway (Metro Core Jobs Study?) that would relax these limits further, so until that study is completed we won't likely see anything taller than Shangri-La.

[jlousa]

The reason you won't see anything taller isn't city council, it's money, it gets prohibitive more expensive to build the higher you go. Vancouver has short blocks with lanes leading to relatively small footprints to build on, it makes no sense to build taller if half your floorplate is devoted to elevators and stairwells. There are hundreds of potential sites downtown that can/will be built up first. Maybe you should be asking is, who wants to build a building taller then Shangri-la in vancouver, I don't know of anyone do you?
We will inevitable see a tower taller then 200m at some point in the future, just not soon.

[giallo]

Good point

[EastVanMark]

The reason you won't see anything taller isn't city council, it's money, it gets prohibitive more expensive to build the higher you go. Vancouver has short blocks with lanes leading to relatively small footprints to build on, it makes no sense to build taller if half your floorplate is devoted to elevators and stairwells. There are hundreds of potential sites downtown that can/will be built up first. Maybe you should be asking is, who wants to build a building taller then Shangri-la in vancouver, I don't know of anyone do you?
We will inevitable see a tower taller then 200m at some point in the future, just not soon.

If the floor plate is smaller, then you should build taller just because of the gain in rentable space. Look to Toronto's Scotia Place to see just how smaller narrow buildings can and do get built extremely tall . Not to mention that when the current business district was developed in the 70's, the city combined lots together to create more space. For some kooky reason this practice has all but been abandoned in this city. The one possible exception to this would be the new Canadian Tire store on Cambie. A store of that size could never had been built there if they hadn't eliminated the alley that used to be there before. Conversely, the old parking lots across from the old Capitol 6 theaters would have been ideal to combine and create one hell of an opportunity for an iconic building. Instead... we got treated to more cookie cutter plain residential towers.

[twoNeurons]

If elevators and stairs takes up 20% of space on a smaller floorplate, even if you build higher, that 20% of unrentable space becomes more and more expensive... unless of course, as you suggested, blocks be consolidated.

[jlousa]

As you build taller the percentage of floorspace devoted to elevators climbs, it can get as high as 50%, hence it becomes unprofitable for higher buildings, this is especially true for commercial buildings which require about twice the number of elevators as a residential tower. ie a 850ft 60 storey commercial tower would require ~15 elevators to service the building properly, that's a hell of a footprint.

About consolidating blocks or getting rid of the lanes, then you end up with either long blocks which reduce the walkabilty we're famous for, or you lose your service lanes which means buildings are serviced via the main roads and you need cutouts across sidewalks, again reducing walkablity. Besides status I'd argue you're better off with 2 30 storey buildings then 1 60 storey one. It's been working for us so far hasn't it? Don't forgot while density is great, like everything there is a point of diminshing returns.

[EastVanMark]

If elevators and stairs takes up 20% of space on a smaller floorplate, even if you build higher, that 20% of unrentable space becomes more and more expensive... unless of course, as you suggested, blocks be consolidated.

Then make the building mixed use where you would need less elevators for residential use. Its not like there aren't examples out there. The parcel of land that the Trump Tower in New York was built on was/is tiny. Even so, they managed to build a building that STILL would be the tallest in Vancouver. And even now there are larger parcels of land available in the downtown core that could be home to even higher buildings than that.

[EastVanMark]

As you build taller the percentage of floorspace devoted to elevators climbs, it can get as high as 50%, hence it becomes unprofitable for higher buildings, this is especially true for commercial buildings which require about twice the number of elevators as a residential tower. ie a 850ft 60 storey commercial tower would require ~15 elevators to service the building properly, that's a hell of a footprint.

About consolidating blocks or getting rid of the lanes, then you end up with either long blocks which reduce the walkabilty we're famous for, or you lose your service lanes which means buildings are serviced via the main roads and you need cutouts across sidewalks, again reducing walkablity. Besides status I'd argue you're better off with 2 30 storey buildings then 1 60 storey one. It's been working for us so far hasn't it? Don't forgot while density is great, like everything there is a point of diminshing returns.

I don't think that if you lost an alley or two, we would lose this allegedly "famous" walkablility. The only people I see using alleys as thoroughfares are the people usually hunting for bottles. Also, you wouldn't always have to lose the service lanes. Look to the Bentall Centre for their service road that service vehicles adore. And even if you lost some(service roads), a few seconds of inconvenience is a small price to pay for greater density and more economic prosperity for the region as a whole. As for the idea of 2 30 floor buildings working for us better than 1 60 floor building so far, I'd say all it has worked in ensuring a really drab, boring skyline.

[jlousa]

Outside this board who cares about the skyline? While our skyline might be what you call boring, as could Venices, Romes, Athens due to a lack of heighta as could countless other european cities, I would wager the atmosphere/liviablity and even density is better then in the Chicagos of the world. I find it funny how the same people that complain about no need for 3000sqft houses and SUVs are the the same ones calling for 800-1000ft towers.

[Canadian Mind]

Jlousa, remember that this thread was started because some guy wanted comments on what it would look like if we had one, not the feasibility or reality of it. I personally would love for Vancouver to have more Skyscrapers. It what most people use to define a city or downtown, and their first impression of the skyline is how big it is, and as they get closer how pretty it is.

Vancouver is developing a very expansive skyline, by area it's the same size as midtown Manhattan, and only getting larger. But it isn't going up. I find the monotony of buildings to be rather appealing. The "wall of glass" holds true and is very beautiful. But it lacks vertical development; You don't get to many people that look up in awe, and think about how awesome the city's skyscrapers are.

As a person about their impression of New York City, they'll talk to you about skyscrapers, same with Chicago, and to a lesser extent Toronto (most people would mention CN tower).

No reason Vancouver can't be known for that aswell. People shouldn't be surprised to come to Vancouver and see a sea of 20-30 story buildings. Give some landmarks for the post cards, and people will come just to see those (Think ESB, Sears Tower, CN Tower, etc.)



If you really wanna nitpick, I'm surprised you aren't on him for sticking the building smack-dab in the middle of a viewcone. Although I agree that the thought of getting a taller building in the next 5-10 years is highly unlikely... and the damn thing is to narrow anyways.

[twoNeurons]

Personally... I think we can look to cities like Tokyo for inspiration too. Massive Density, but all low and mid-rises. Tallest Tower... just over 250m.

http://www.stephenwiltshire.co.uk/gfx/Tokyo_Panorama_by_Stephen_Wiltshire.jpg

[Cypherus]

^That's a crazy picture! I hope no one actually sat down and traced the panoramic view of Tokyo in pencil....

[deasine]

that picture is incredable

[Hourglass]

Incredible pic

Part of the reason for all the mid-rises is, of course, due to the unfortunate propensity for earthquakes.

I see your point, and Tokyo is an amazing city, but much as I love visiting, I wouldn't actually want to live there. Candidly, I prefer the density of the built forms one sees in European cities such as London or Paris.

[SFUVancouver]

I read once that in post-war Tokyo all the buildings were numbered in the order in which they were approved and many do not adhere to any sort of logical grid. Does anyone know if this is still the case? How on earth does anyone know where they are going if the buildings are not numbered sequentially?

[Canadian Mind]

Good directions?

[raggedy13]

then you end up with either long blocks which reduce the walkabilty we're famous for

I think if you refer to Vancouver's most walkable retail streets, the majority are oriented along the longest length of the block suggesting that long blocks are as good or better in terms of walkability. For example Robson, Granville, W 4th, W 10th, Broadway, Hastings. However ones such as Denman, Main, and Commercial are oriented along the short ends of the blocks. Just something to consider.

I find it funny how the same people that complain about no need for 3000sqft houses and SUVs are the the same ones calling for 800-1000ft towers.

But 3000sq ft houses and SUVs = very low density; 800-1000ft towers = very high density. It seems only logical that people who complain about the former are calling for the latter. :shrug:

[Canadian Mind]

I think if you refer to Vancouver's most walkable retail streets, the majority are oriented along the longest length of the block suggesting that long blocks are as good or better in terms of walkability. For example Robson, Granville, W 4th, W 10th, Broadway, Hastings. However ones such as Denman, Main, and Commercial are oriented along the short ends of the blocks. Just something to consider.


Agreed. The thing is, people view streets as psychological barriers, no matter how you put it. eventually you are forced to stop. so the longer the block, the longer the free reign before a street occurs.

[androo3]

The reason you won't see anything taller isn't city council, it's money, it gets prohibitive more expensive to build the higher you go. Vancouver has short blocks with lanes leading to relatively small footprints to build on, it makes no sense to build taller if half your floorplate is devoted to elevators and stairwells. There are hundreds of potential sites downtown that can/will be built up first. Maybe you should be asking is, who wants to build a building taller then Shangri-la in vancouver, I don't know of anyone do you?
We will inevitable see a tower taller then 200m at some point in the future, just not soon.

I do agree that we will not see a tower in 5 maybe 10 years taller than shangri la, But you never know. Also we could see the planning stages start in this time. There is always Emaar...they are yet to do anything major.

On to the fictional part here is what I would love to see.

http://byfiles.storage.live.com/y1pfeJ_6uepZtQnMdN0YAzPBPB3sTSIEEVWwqVMq7Blm4q4iUn4Y76eyhptnPl9TPm29IZUgC4j333GieVqVFiQq9sYFfpTEYBB

I always remember before the latest boom seeing Vancouver as having patina roofs in the skyline (Hotel Vancouver, and Cathedral), but they are lost in the skyline now. So I would love to see a tower like this. Linked to the soon to be old art gallery, 900' Taking over the space behind and beside the art gallery buildings and haveing a hotel vancouver catedral feel. Bringing back the Patina roof to the skyline:notacrook:

[twoNeurons]

I read once that in post-war Tokyo all the buildings were numbered in the order in which they were approved and many do not adhere to any sort of logical grid. Does anyone know if this is still the case? How on earth does anyone know where they are going if the buildings are not numbered sequentially?

It was done from memory and it's almost perfect by a rather famous English autistic artistic genius. Video on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95L-zmIBGd4)

As for Tokyo (and any other city as far as I know) being sequentially numbered, in actual fact there are few street names in Tokyo. Directions are given from Landmarks. For example: "Take the west exit from Tennoji station, go straight for 200m to the Makudo (Mcd's) turn left and go straight for 400m until you get to a little sculpture, turn right into the complex and we're in Block 4, Building 3, 'Your name here' "

Of course, if you go to Japan, you'll notice that every japanese home has a fax machine... in fact, the Japanese were huge adopters of the fax machine... why? So they could fax each other directions to each others' houses. Of course, nowadays everyone has a GPS on their phones and cars, so they usually use that... but it's true, if you don't have accurate directions, you could get easily lost.

A typical Japanese Address (written in English for the sake of explanation):
T170-3293 (postal code)
Tokyo Chuo-ku Ginza (Prefecture, Town/Ward/city, Sub-area)
5-2-1 (Sub-area 5, block 2, building 1)
Morimoto, Yoshi-san (Lastname, First Name, Mr/Ms)

When written in Japanese, it makes sense from a flow point of view, least specific to most specific (except the postal code, by itself)

Someone who lives in Burnaby would be like this:

V1X XV1
Metro Vancouver, Burnaby, Metrotown
Area 5, Block 2, Building 1
Smith John, Mr.

Kind of cool, if you ask me... but I'm all for things written down logically... (like dates, 2007-12-14 (yyyy-mm-dd) makes so much more logical sense than a short date format of mm/dd/yy )

my $0.02

[mr.x]

we need one of these: :p
http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/CAI/Images/NearNorthSide/ChicagoSpire-004.jpg

[twoNeurons]

That's quite phallic.

[Canadian Mind]

looks liek a giant e-penis.

[Jacques]

looks liek a giant e-penis.

more like a huge vibrator, gives an all new meaning to the next phrase: you like the screw:D :D :D :D

[EastVanMark]

Outside this board who cares about the skyline? While our skyline might be what you call boring, as could Venices, Romes, Athens due to a lack of heighta as could countless other european cities, I would wager the atmosphere/liviablity and even density is better then in the Chicagos of the world. I find it funny how the same people that complain about no need for 3000sqft houses and SUVs are the the same ones calling for 800-1000ft towers.

Those cities were all designed (and built out) hundreds if not THOUSANDS of years ago, when building taller was an impossibility, and the made mode of transportation was some form of an animal, hence a grid system in some spots is just a few feet wide, which in no way shape or form could support the extra density that would come with larger structures. Not to mention, those cities have structures the caliber of the Coliseum, St Peter's Basilica, the Parthenon, which any building in Vancouver doesn't even come close to matching in terms of importance. Also, at least Rome if not the others have laws which forbid the construction of buildings which in any way could take away from there worldly treasured structures.